The topic of human euthanasia, both passive and active, has recently become a high topic of controversy. Ailments that once would guarantee death are now curable, at the possible expense of permanent disabilities. We now also have the option to keep quadriplegics alive until a different illness takes their lives. Some of the victims to these new conditions want to end their suffering. They search for an “easy death”. However, under current law in over 90% of the states, these patients cannot achieve this more “dignified” death.
People like Chris Hill support one opinion, that which supports active euthanasia. Once a man who “lived life to the max,” Hill suffered a hang-gliding accident that left him paralyzed from the chest down. Unable to cope with the loss of dignity and self-respect, Hill wrote a note to his family explaining his decision for suicide. “I was tired of the crying. I never imagined that anyone could hurt so bad and cry so much.” Hill realized he could not handle the constant physical and psychological pain that came with his condition, and he decided that he deserved the same treatment many animals got. To him, euthanasia would give him a “release, something to celebrate,” something that would graciously end suffering rather than maliciously end life.
Another supporter of this opinion is Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch medical professional that has assisted people like Chris Hill in their suicide. Pieter highlights a case with Esther, a woman with multiple sclerosis. Her disease had progressed to the point where she was completely paralyzed, and she wanted to end her life while she still possessed some dignity. Admiraal, along with “the entire health care team, including a Roman Catholic chaplain,” discussed the matter, and in the end they “unanimously agreed that we should honour her wish and that we would end her life.” Esther responded by saying it “was the happiest day in her life since she had become ill.” Admiraal was prosecuted, but after the Secretary of the Dutch Medical Association declared his actions “an example of good medical care,” the case was dropped. Admiraal utterly rejects the idea of the “slippery slope,” as patients feel “they can count on their doctors when they need them most.”
However, there are some dissenting opinions on this topic. The head of this opinion is the Catholic Church. In their “Declaration on Euthanasia”, the church argues that “Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is…equally as wrong as murder,” a “rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.” The church feels that life is precious, and it cannot be tarnished in any way. Suicide is equal to murder in their eyes, a direct violation of the Ten Commandments. However, in the same declaration, the church allows the use of painkillers at the moment of death, since “death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken.” While prolonging life “alters God’s plan” nearly as much as ending it, the desire to protect life at all costs makes the use of most modern medicine acceptable.
In addition to the Catholics, there are some handicapped patients who strongly oppose euthanasia as well. Alison Davis was born with spina bifida, and the doctors who initially cared for her encouraged her parents to “leave me in the hospital and ‘go home and have another.’” However, her parents refused this advice, and Davis has since spent her life protecting the right to life for handicapped people. A new bill in her area would allow “doctors to withhold treatment from newborn handicapped babies,” and Davis would not have received treatment if the bill had been in effect when she was born. Davis utterly rejects the bill as well as the advice the doctors gave her parents believing it contributes to the “slippery slope” theory. She warns us that “when we get too old to be considered ‘useful’ and all the friends who could have spoken in our defense have already been oh so lovingly ‘allowed to die.’”
Personally, I feel that euthanasia should be legal, but strongly discouraged. While I do not want people to choose death hastily as an “escape” from a new life, there are cases where the prospects are, to be frank, hopeless. For example, take the case of Terri Schiavo. Schiavo was in a permanent vegetative state, and while her husband wanted to remove the feeding tube that was keeping her alive, her parents strongly opposed it. I strongly take the side of the husband in cases like these. The choice was really between not seeing a dead person and seeing a dead person with a beating heart. The outlook in these cases is so bleak that euthanasia will end the pain for everyone, not just the patient. I would also add cases like Esther’s to the list, patients with terminal illnesses that are losing their function in society and are on the brink of excruciating pain. Euthanasia allows the patients to avoid this pain, while only shortening their life span by a few weeks. However, there are also examples where I feel euthanasia is a poor choice. I agree with Alison Davis that simply euthanizing handicapped babies is not the best option. The spectrum of that manner is far too broad, and it is impossible for anyone to know how that baby feels. Even in adults, simply having a disability should not grant you eligibility for suicide. No matter how depressed they may get, there are still numerous activities that many physically disabled people can engage in. Gary Kostiuk was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, just like Esther. However, before the disease became too serious, he participated in the World Series of Poker Main Event. If there was any sign that God approved of his choice, it would be that Kostiuk finished in 85th place out of over 7000 entrants. While I think Kostiuk should have the option of euthanasia when his disease becomes much worse, those whose outlooks are not nearly as bleak should find a hobby. It may not be poker, but opportunities are still available to many people, and they can take the most from these opportunities if they intrinsically decide to do so. Paralysis is the area that I have the most difficult assessing, and I have a determined the clearest line I can draw: the mobility of the arms. If a patient can move his upper body well enough to perform tasks such as writing or eating, then I feel euthanasia should be prohibited. Instead, I feel they should have their legs cut off and learn to walk with their hands. I know this may be as controversial as euthanasia itself, but listen to my logic. Legs are not necessary to survival, and the paralyzed person will be confined to a wheelchair anyway, so why not remove the now useless limbs so that there is still hope for mobility without a wheelchair. At the National ELCA Youth Gathering, I listened to a guest speaker who was born with a condition that required doctors to amputate his legs. He admitted there were challenges, but that he made it through. At the end of the speech, he did something no one was expecting: he dismounted himself from his wheelchair and began walking on his hands. Even today, I find that he was my favorite speaker both during the gathering, and even during my short life. It is because of him that losing movement in your legs is not worthy of euthanasia. On the other hand, if patients cannot move their arms, then I feel that euthanasia should be an option, although it should not be encouraged. People like Ramon Sanpedro, the “head in a bed” cases, have practically no positive outlook. They can talk, crack jokes, make people laugh, but that is all I can see. If someone finds no joy in that, then their only other option is death, and like the case with Sanpedro, if doctors are not permitted to assist in suicide, the patient will still find a way to do so. There are hundreds of scenarios where euthanasia is considered as a viable option. In some of these cases, like when a patient has a disability or when death is not an immediate threat, then I feel that euthanasia cannot be an option. However, I think it is foolish to agree completely with the Catholics. When death by disease is an immediate threat and full body paralysis, I find euthanasia to be acceptable. In Million Dollar Baby, Maggie had no control over anything except her speech. The only person she seemed to like was Frankie, and it was apparent to her that her existence was hurting him. Her outlook was among the bleakest of any paralysis story I have heard. I feel that while a redneck family may have not been the best way to describe the life of a paralyzed patient accurately, euthanasia should have been a viable option in her case. Her paralysis passed my arms test, if I need further defense of my decision. Frankie was justified in his actions, and I do not believe God would have sent him to hell because of it.
People like Chris Hill support one opinion, that which supports active euthanasia. Once a man who “lived life to the max,” Hill suffered a hang-gliding accident that left him paralyzed from the chest down. Unable to cope with the loss of dignity and self-respect, Hill wrote a note to his family explaining his decision for suicide. “I was tired of the crying. I never imagined that anyone could hurt so bad and cry so much.” Hill realized he could not handle the constant physical and psychological pain that came with his condition, and he decided that he deserved the same treatment many animals got. To him, euthanasia would give him a “release, something to celebrate,” something that would graciously end suffering rather than maliciously end life.
Another supporter of this opinion is Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch medical professional that has assisted people like Chris Hill in their suicide. Pieter highlights a case with Esther, a woman with multiple sclerosis. Her disease had progressed to the point where she was completely paralyzed, and she wanted to end her life while she still possessed some dignity. Admiraal, along with “the entire health care team, including a Roman Catholic chaplain,” discussed the matter, and in the end they “unanimously agreed that we should honour her wish and that we would end her life.” Esther responded by saying it “was the happiest day in her life since she had become ill.” Admiraal was prosecuted, but after the Secretary of the Dutch Medical Association declared his actions “an example of good medical care,” the case was dropped. Admiraal utterly rejects the idea of the “slippery slope,” as patients feel “they can count on their doctors when they need them most.”
However, there are some dissenting opinions on this topic. The head of this opinion is the Catholic Church. In their “Declaration on Euthanasia”, the church argues that “Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is…equally as wrong as murder,” a “rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.” The church feels that life is precious, and it cannot be tarnished in any way. Suicide is equal to murder in their eyes, a direct violation of the Ten Commandments. However, in the same declaration, the church allows the use of painkillers at the moment of death, since “death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken.” While prolonging life “alters God’s plan” nearly as much as ending it, the desire to protect life at all costs makes the use of most modern medicine acceptable.
In addition to the Catholics, there are some handicapped patients who strongly oppose euthanasia as well. Alison Davis was born with spina bifida, and the doctors who initially cared for her encouraged her parents to “leave me in the hospital and ‘go home and have another.’” However, her parents refused this advice, and Davis has since spent her life protecting the right to life for handicapped people. A new bill in her area would allow “doctors to withhold treatment from newborn handicapped babies,” and Davis would not have received treatment if the bill had been in effect when she was born. Davis utterly rejects the bill as well as the advice the doctors gave her parents believing it contributes to the “slippery slope” theory. She warns us that “when we get too old to be considered ‘useful’ and all the friends who could have spoken in our defense have already been oh so lovingly ‘allowed to die.’”
Personally, I feel that euthanasia should be legal, but strongly discouraged. While I do not want people to choose death hastily as an “escape” from a new life, there are cases where the prospects are, to be frank, hopeless. For example, take the case of Terri Schiavo. Schiavo was in a permanent vegetative state, and while her husband wanted to remove the feeding tube that was keeping her alive, her parents strongly opposed it. I strongly take the side of the husband in cases like these. The choice was really between not seeing a dead person and seeing a dead person with a beating heart. The outlook in these cases is so bleak that euthanasia will end the pain for everyone, not just the patient. I would also add cases like Esther’s to the list, patients with terminal illnesses that are losing their function in society and are on the brink of excruciating pain. Euthanasia allows the patients to avoid this pain, while only shortening their life span by a few weeks.
However, there are also examples where I feel euthanasia is a poor choice. I agree with Alison Davis that simply euthanizing handicapped babies is not the best option. The spectrum of that manner is far too broad, and it is impossible for anyone to know how that baby feels. Even in adults, simply having a disability should not grant you eligibility for suicide. No matter how depressed they may get, there are still numerous activities that many physically disabled people can engage in. Gary Kostiuk was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, just like Esther. However, before the disease became too serious, he participated in the World Series of Poker Main Event. If there was any sign that God approved of his choice, it would be that Kostiuk finished in 85th place out of over 7000 entrants. While I think Kostiuk should have the option of euthanasia when his disease becomes much worse, those whose outlooks are not nearly as bleak should find a hobby. It may not be poker, but opportunities are still available to many people, and they can take the most from these opportunities if they intrinsically decide to do so.
Paralysis is the area that I have the most difficult assessing, and I have a determined the clearest line I can draw: the mobility of the arms. If a patient can move his upper body well enough to perform tasks such as writing or eating, then I feel euthanasia should be prohibited. Instead, I feel they should have their legs cut off and learn to walk with their hands. I know this may be as controversial as euthanasia itself, but listen to my logic. Legs are not necessary to survival, and the paralyzed person will be confined to a wheelchair anyway, so why not remove the now useless limbs so that there is still hope for mobility without a wheelchair. At the National ELCA Youth Gathering, I listened to a guest speaker who was born with a condition that required doctors to amputate his legs. He admitted there were challenges, but that he made it through. At the end of the speech, he did something no one was expecting: he dismounted himself from his wheelchair and began walking on his hands. Even today, I find that he was my favorite speaker both during the gathering, and even during my short life. It is because of him that losing movement in your legs is not worthy of euthanasia.
On the other hand, if patients cannot move their arms, then I feel that euthanasia should be an option, although it should not be encouraged. People like Ramon Sanpedro, the “head in a bed” cases, have practically no positive outlook. They can talk, crack jokes, make people laugh, but that is all I can see. If someone finds no joy in that, then their only other option is death, and like the case with Sanpedro, if doctors are not permitted to assist in suicide, the patient will still find a way to do so.
There are hundreds of scenarios where euthanasia is considered as a viable option. In some of these cases, like when a patient has a disability or when death is not an immediate threat, then I feel that euthanasia cannot be an option. However, I think it is foolish to agree completely with the Catholics. When death by disease is an immediate threat and full body paralysis, I find euthanasia to be acceptable. In Million Dollar Baby, Maggie had no control over anything except her speech. The only person she seemed to like was Frankie, and it was apparent to her that her existence was hurting him. Her outlook was among the bleakest of any paralysis story I have heard. I feel that while a redneck family may have not been the best way to describe the life of a paralyzed patient accurately, euthanasia should have been a viable option in her case. Her paralysis passed my arms test, if I need further defense of my decision. Frankie was justified in his actions, and I do not believe God would have sent him to hell because of it.